Orissa High Court

Umesh Ch. Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 10 September, 2025

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                                                   Signature Not Verified
                                                                   Digitally Signed
                                                                   Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
                                                                   Reason: Authentication
                                                                   Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
                                                                   Date: 11-Sep-2025 18:36:44




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              W.P.(C) No.32402 of 2011
        (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
        Constitution of India, 1950).

         Umesh Ch. Sahoo                            ....             Petitioner (s)

                                         -versus-

         State of Odisha & Ors.                     ....        Opposite Party (s)

      Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

         For Petitioner (s)          :              Mr. Prasanna Ku. Mishra, Adv.

         For Opp. Party (s)          :               Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, ASC

                   CORAM:
                   DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

                        DATE OF HEARING:-12.08.2025
                       DATE OF JUDGMENT:-10.09.2025
      Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to

quash the impugned eviction orders passed by the Tahasildar,

Ghatagaon, Sub-Collector, Keonjhar and ADM, Keonjhar and to direct

settlement of the disputed land in his favour on the basis of long,

continuous possession since 1966.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioner challenges three orders of eviction: Tahasildar,

Ghatagaon (28.03.2007) in Encroachment Case No.1227/2006-07, Sub-

Collector, Keonjhar (16.06.2008) in Encroachment Appeal No.01/2007,

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

and Additional District Magistrate, Keonjhar (06.03.2009) in

Encroachment Revision No.04/2008, all confirmed the eviction and

penalties.

(ii) The disputed land is Plot No.534 under Khata No.116 (later noted as

Khata No.166) of Mouza Dhenkikote, measuring Ac.1.22 dec., recorded

in the ROR as "jungle kisam" under Abad Jogya Anabadi Khata,

previously held by one Karuna Sethi and later occupied by the

petitioner's father, Mohan Ch. Sahoo, since 1966.

(iii) The petitioner's father constructed a shed for residence, cultivated the

land, and his possession was reflected in earlier revenue records;

reports of the Tahasildar in 2007 confirmed long possession since 1966.

(iv) Earlier encroachment proceedings were initiated against the

petitioner's father: Case No.179/1992-93 and Case No.255/2001-02,

where he admitted possession and sought settlement; Revenue

Inspector reports recorded the land as "jungle kisam," noted income

above the prescribed limit, and held him not landless; eviction notices

were issued, penalties imposed, and lands recorded as free from

encroachment.

(v) In 2006-07, the petitioner himself was proceeded against in

Encroachment Case No.1227/2006-07 for raising a boundary wall on

Plot No.534; notice under Section 7 OPLE Act was issued on 24.02.2007

and show cause reply was filed on 09.03.2007 pleading landless status

and long possession.

(vi) The Tahasildar ordered eviction on 28.03.2007, holding that the

petitioner remained absent and villagers protested the encroachment.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(vii) The Sub-Collector, in Appeal No.01/2007, dismissed the plea on

16.06.2008, finding that the land was "jungle kisam" under Abad Jogya

Anabadi Khata and not leasable in nature.

(viii) The Additional District Magistrate, in Revision No.04/2008, dismissed

the case on 06.03.2009, holding that possession was not continuous,

earlier encroachment cases existed, the petitioner was not landless,

income exceeded the prescribed limit, and jungle kisam land was not fit

for settlement.

(ix) The opposite parties relied upon Revenue Inspector reports, RoR

extracts showing no possession recorded in the petitioner's father's

name, and documents reflecting income levels and property holdings

including an aluminium shop at Anandapur and agricultural land at

Mugupur.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The impugned orders are contrary to law as the authorities failed to

appreciate that the petitioner and his family have been in continuous

possession since 1966, which creates entitlement for settlement.

(ii) The finding that the petitioner is not a landless person and has income

of ₹30,000 per annum is based on no material; no particulars of land

ownership or income sources were produced, rendering the conclusion

arbitrary.

(iii) The Sub-Collector's observation that the land is Abad Jogya Anabadi

should have prevailed; the ADM's reliance on the "jungle kisam" entry

in ROR reflects non-application of judicial mind and inconsistency.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(iv) Earlier encroachment proceedings against the father were left

unresolved and presumed dropped; hence, initiation of a fresh

proceeding against the petitioner is barred by res judicata and amounts

to double jeopardy under the Act.

(v) The principle of continuous possession for over 30 years, coupled with

the petitioner's claim of being landless, mandates settlement rather than

eviction, and the contrary finding is unsustainable.

(vi) The orders of Tahasildar, Sub-Collector, and ADM are vitiated by

procedural irregularity, non-consideration of reports, and violation of

natural justice, since the petitioner was not heard before final disposal

on 28.03.2007.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the

following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The writ petition is not maintainable in law and deserves dismissal at

the threshold, as the petitioner seeks to reopen settled encroachment

disputes already adjudicated up to the revisional stage.

(ii) The petitioner and his father were never recorded owners or continuous

lawful possessors; their possession was illegal encroachment,

repeatedly established through multiple encroachment proceedings

(1992, 2001, 2006).

(iii) The plea of being landless is false, as both petitioner and father had

stable income above prescribed limits, along with homestead and

agricultural land at Mugupur; hence they were ineligible for settlement

under OPLE rules.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(iv) The disputed land being classified as jungle kisam under AJA Khata is

highly objectionable for settlement; such land cannot be regularized in

favour of encroachers irrespective of duration of possession.

(v) Authorities at all levels (Tahasildar, Sub-Collector, ADM) rightly

rejected the claim after due enquiry, following OPLE procedure under

Sections 6-9, and orders are consistent and legally valid.

(vi) The writ petition contains false claims of possession being recorded in

RoR, suppresses past encroachment proceedings, and misrepresents

income and landholding status; hence, it lacks merit and should be

dismissed.

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURT:

5. The orders of the Tahasildar and the Sub-Collector reveal the following

key findings:

(i) The Tahasildar, Ghatagaon initiated Encroachment Case No.1227/2006-

07 on requisition from the R.I., Dhenkikote, issuing notice under Section

7 OPLE Act on 14.02.2007 prohibiting construction and directing the

petitioner to reply to the show cause regarding encroachment of an area

measuring Ac.1.22 under Plot No.534, Khata No.166, Mouza

Dhenkikote.

(ii) The petitioner filed reply to the show cause on 09.03.2007 claiming

inherited possession and disputing the kisam entry as "jungle," but no

subsequent notice of hearing was served; the case was taken up on

28.03.2007 in petitioner's absence, resulting in eviction order with

imposition of back rent and penalty, directing vacation within 30 days.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(iii) The Sub-Collector, Keonjhar, in Encroachment Appeal No.01/2007,

upheld the Tahasildar's eviction order dated 28.03.2007 and dismissed

the petitioner's appeal on 16.06.2008, maintaining the finding that the

land was objectionable for settlement.

(iv) Both Tahasildar and Sub-Collector held that the land fell under Abada

Jogya Anabadi Khata but recorded as jungle kisam, which was treated

as objectionable in nature and not fit for settlement in favour of the

petitioner.

(v) The lower courts concluded that the petitioner was in unauthorized

occupation, and the plea of inherited possession and long-standing

occupation was insufficient to prevent eviction under the OPLE

framework

V. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS:

6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents

placed before this Court.

7. It is a settled position of law that a person in unauthorized occupation

of Government land cannot claim any legal right to continue on such

land or seek regularization as a matter of course. In fact, the Supreme

Court in the case of Joginder and Anr v. State of Haryana1 has

emphatically held as follows:

"It is required to be noted that the persons in illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land cannot, as a matter of right, claim regularization. Regularization of the illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land can only be as per the policy of the State Government and the conditions stipulated in the Rules. If it is found that the conditions stipulated for regularisation have not been

SLP (Civil) No. 1829/2021.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

fulfilled, such persons in illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land are not entitled to regularization."

8. In other words, an encroacher's only entitlement (if any) is derived from

the applicable government policy or statute, and even that is contingent

on full compliance with the prescribed conditions. Long duration of

occupation by itself does not confer any legal sanction. Courts cannot

direct that an encroachment be regularized on grounds of hardship or

length of possession when the statutory conditions are unmet. On the

contrary, the judicial precedents have consistently directed all State

authorities to remove encroachments on public lands, emphasizing that

such blatant illegalities must not be condoned even if encroachers have

built houses or occupied the land for many years. The public character

of the land must be preserved, and any regularization, if at all

permissible, is an exception strictly governed by law.

9. In the present case, the petitioner's principal claim is that his family's

continuous occupation of the land since 1966, coupled with an asserted

status as "landless," entitles him to settlement of the land instead of

eviction. This contention is misconceived in law and on facts. Mere long

possession, even over 30 years, does not create a vested right to demand

settlement of Government land. The Orissa Prevention of Land

Encroachment Act, 1972 (OPLE Act) and the Rules made thereunder do

contemplate the possibility of settling certain encroachments, but only

if specific criteria are satisfied. First, the land itself must be of a type that

is non-objectionable and eligible for lease under the applicable policy.

Here, the disputed Plot No.534 is recorded as "Abad Jogya Anabadi,

Jungle kisam." This classification indicates it is government wasteland

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

with forest growth (jungle). Such land is treated as environmentally

sensitive and not ordinarily available for settlement in favor of

encroachers.

10. The authorities have consistently considered "jungle" land as

objectionable for regularization, which is evident from the Revenue

Inspector's reports and the concurrent findings of the Tahasildar, Sub-

Collector, and Additional District Magistrate. The Court finds no error

in that assessment. Forest-like government lands enjoy special

protection and cannot be freely divested; any settlement would require

strict adherence to Forest conservation norms and State policies, which

are absent in this case. Thus, the nature of the land itself disentitles the

petitioner.

11. It is settled that public lands, particularly those with environmental

sensitivity, cannot be permitted to remain under encroachment on

sympathetic grounds. The judicial precedents have repeatedly

underscored that encroachers acquire no equity against the State and

that preservation of public property must take precedence over private

claims.

12. To this effect, the Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh & Ors vs

State Of Punjab and Ors.2 directed all State authorities to remove

encroachments on public lands, emphasizing that such blatant

illegalities must not be condoned, even if encroachers have built houses

or occupied the land for many years. The relevant excerpt is produced

below:

AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 1123.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

"We are of the opinion that such kind of blatant illegalities must not be condoned. Even if the appellants have built houses on the land in question they must be ordered to remove their constructions, and possession of the land in question must be handed back to the Gram Panchayat. Regularizing such illegalities must not be permitted because it is Gram Sabha land which must be kept for the common use of villagers of the village."

13. In light of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the petitioner has failed to establish any enforceable right to seek

settlement of the disputed land. The classification of the land as jungle

kisam under Abad Jogya Anabadi Khata makes it ineligible for

regularization, irrespective of the length of possession claimed. The plea

of being "landless" is unsupported by credible material, while the

concurrent findings of the Tahasildar, Sub-Collector, and Additional

District Magistrate reflect due consideration of the statutory scheme

under the OPLE Act. This Court, therefore, finds no perversity or

illegality in the orders impugned.

14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.

15. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.